9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another importer had also imported similar goods and filed a Bill of Entry No.159931 dated 06.03.2003, declaring therein, the imported goods as 'Tube for Emergency Light' (of 9 watt and of 11 watt) of Oscar Brand. They had submitted the Invoice No.SUGS-81083C dated 21.01.2003 for import of 1,00,000 and 58,600 pieces of 9 watt and 11 watt tubes respectively. The Unit Price of the goods is declared to be US $0.050 (Rs.2.25 per piece) and US $0.057 (Rs.2.30 per piece). Total CIF Value as per Invoice is US $8223/-(CIF). In both the above cases, the shippers of the goods were M/s. China Machinery Corporation and Equipment Import and Export Sujhou Company Ltd., the country of origin of the goods had been declared as China. The CHA for both the consignments was M/s. Maxim International. Both the Bills of Entry were assessed as per the declared description and the value. On examination, the proper officer had found them to be the goods other than CFL. The description tallied as per Invoice and Packing List. 3. Acting on the information that the above importers were indulging in evading the Anti-Dumping Duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamp(CFL) of Chinese origin, by misdeclaring the desc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the said goods against redemption fine of Rs.6.00 lakh and imposed penalty of Rs.86.00 lakh on Shri Anuj Mahajan, Proprietor of M/S. Krishna Trading Co., New Delhi. The Appellants have challenged the aforesaid Order of the Commissioner of Customs (Port) before this Forum. 5. Ld. Advocate for the Appellants, at the outset, denied that the impugned goods were CFL and therefore, the Anti-Dumping Duty is not leviable on the said goods. 5.1. The ld. Advocate submitted that the Test Report of ERTL does not give the reasons for the opinion that samples tested were CFL. No method of test is described and therefore cryptic and therefore, have no force in the eyes of law. It has been further stated that the said opinion of ERTL was at the back of the appellants and there is no evidence that the same was from consignment in question. It is the contention that they had produced expert advice and also requested for the cross-examination of ERTL but the same was not permitted. Accordingly, they made an application before the Ld. Adjudicating authority during the proceedings of adjudication to open the container and permit to take fresh samples and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on the glass tubes. 5.5. The ld. Advocate submitted that in case, before Advance Ruling in the case of Permalite Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is held that Sealed Quoted Tube with filament proposed to be imported by the applicant is not a CFL system even without choke, as is commonly understood in concerned trade or market, hence will not be leviable to Anti-Dumping Duty. 5.6. It is also his submission that the Board's Circular issued under letter F.No.528-53/2007-Cus.TRU dated 25.10.2007 clarified that Anti-Dumping Duty is leviable on CFL and parts of CFL. This clarification had been issued based on a clarification of the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and allied duties (DGAD). 5.7. The ld. Advocate submitted that the goods imported against the impugned Bills of Entry were already assessed under the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and found during examination by the proper officer as per Invoice and Packing List and other than CFL. The Revenue cannot review its Order of Assessment in regard to under-valuation. In regard to under-valuation, the ld. Advocate has submitted that the goods under contemporary import were not comparable and that in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny objection for re-testing of the samples and in case, the Tribunal so desires, the samples should be got re-tested from M/s. Centre for Electronics Test Engineering, ERTC (East) Campus, Block-DN, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700 091. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. The issue in dispute is whether the impugned goods, are CFL (with/without choke) attracting Anti-Dumping Duty or as the case may be, other than CFL. According to the Revenue, the items under import though declared as Tube for Emergency Light, were found to be CFL on testing, as determined by the expert laboratory. Further, the market enquiries and the contemporary imports of the similar goods indicated under-valuation. It is, however, the case of the Appellants that the items under import were not CFL, as they had imported only electrical goods i.e. 'Tube for Emergency Light'. After perusal of the various case-laws cited supra, we observe that the items such as, 'Discharge Tube mounted on shell cover', 'plastic cone', 'sealed glass tubes' etc. when imported separately, were not considered as CFL. It is held that these were parts, as they required various other components like choke, PCB assembly and plast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
